Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo
Appeal from the 181st District Court Randall County, Texas
Trial Court No. 68, 967-B, Honorable John B. Board, Presiding
CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
C. PARKER JUSTICE.
a dispute between adjoining land owners over a small tract of
land. Tunnell filed suit against the Comptons asserting fee
simple ownership of the disputed property. The trial court
granted summary judgment in favor of the Comptons. We affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
March 2, 2012, Gary and Loretta Compton purchased a
6.993-acre tract of land located at 9400 Dowell
Road. The property is a rectangular shaped area
of land just south of Amarillo. Dowell Road runs along the
east side of the property. Bobby Tunnell's home and
property is situated on a 30.976-acre tract to the west of
the Compton property and is landlocked. There is a 30-foot
roadway and utility easement from Dowell Road through the
Compton property to Tunnell's property. The ownership of
this roadway is the subject of the underlying dispute between
disputed property is approximately 0.921 acres and is located
within the metes and bounds description of the Compton tract.
This property is also mentioned in Tunnell's 2003
warranty deed as a "30 foot roadway and utility
between the parties started when the Comptons began
construction of a house toward the eastern portion of their
property, just north of the easement. Tunnell's attorney
sent a letter to the Comptons on September 22, 2015, advising
the Comptons to cease any use of the roadway. Soon
thereafter, Tunnell filed a declaratory judgment action
seeking a declaration that he is the owner of the property in
fee simple through his 2003 deed or adverse
trial court granted the Comptons' motion for partial
summary judgment as to ownership only. Tunnell appeals
the adverse ruling on the summary judgment and the granting
of a permanent injunction that he refrain from interference
with the Comptons' use of the land.
Motion for Summary Judgment
review the trial court's decision to grant summary
judgment de novo. Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467
S.W.3d 477, 481 (Tex. 2015). When reviewing a summary
judgment, we take as true all evidence favorable to the
nonmovant, and we indulge every reasonable inference and
resolve any doubts in the nonmovant's favor. Valence
Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex.
2005). A trial court properly grants a motion for summary
judgment when the movant has established that there are no
genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Provident Life &
Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215-16 (Tex.
2003). When the trial court does not specify the grounds for
its summary judgment, the appellate court must affirm the
summary judgment if any of the theories presented to the
trial court and preserved for appellate review are
meritorious. Id. at 216.
Motion for Summary Judgment
reviewing a no-evidence summary judgment, we must consider
all the evidence in the light most favorable to the party
against whom the summary judgment was rendered, crediting
evidence favorable to that party if reasonable jurors could
and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors
could not. Gonzalez v. Ramirez,463 S.W.3d 499, 504
(Tex. 2015); City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d
802, 827 (Tex. 2005). We will affirm a no-evidence summary
judgment if the record shows one of the following: (1) there
is no evidence on the challenged element, (2) the evidence
offered to prove the challenged element is no more than a
scintilla, (3) the evidence establishes the opposite of the
challenged element, or (4) the court is barred by law or ...